Help identifying artillery shell fragment

Joined
Sep 6, 2016
I found this, what I believe to be an artillery shell fragment, about 14-15 years ago. It was found in Lynchburg, VA near the Sandusky Line defensive works on the outskirts of the city. Any help figuring out what kind of even if this is a shell fragment would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    256.1 KB · Views: 691
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    246.8 KB · Views: 464
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    200.2 KB · Views: 358
I'm no expert, but I don't think that is a shell fragment at all. However, it's certainly an interesting item. It would be interesting to know what is!
 
This looks like it could be a James projectile. due to the large number of older 6-pdr field guns, many were taken to arsenals and rifeling was cut in the bronze barrels. since a iron round would quickly wear out the rifling, they used what was known as a James projectile (and were called James Rifles), named after the inventor. If it is a James, the long parts coming from the top would have been attached to a base. The area where the long parts were would have been filled with lead. The James projectiles were smaller than the bore, and the lead band would engage the rifling. while they did have a tenancy to foul quickly, it allowed many of the older 6-pdr field guns to be re utilized as rifled artillery. A report that shows the artillery strength of the Army of the Cumberland, shows that most batteries were a mix of rifled and smoothbore guns, with many of the batteries being armed with James Rifles.

https://markerhunter.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/james-rifles-pt1/
 

Attachments

  • JamesProjectile.jpg
    JamesProjectile.jpg
    10 KB · Views: 322
If it's a James shell fragment, it is certainly unlike anyone I've ever seen. However, as I said, I'm no expert.
 
I'm not one either, but I have see several variations of the James design in photos. I recall that there were a few other rounds similar in design to the James, so it could also be one of the variations. its a little hard to tell in the photos, but the diameter looks about right for a 6-pdr James.
 
Lieutenant Colonel J.W. Mallet, who was in charge of the Confederate States Central Laboratory at Macon Georgia, devised a shell having a polyhedral cavity instead of a conical or spherical one in order to provide for a definite number of pieces when it burst.

In explanation of his improvement, Colonel Mallet said that it obviously was not a matter of indifference into what number of pieces the shell might separate on bursting that if the pieces were very small the destructive effect of each would be insignificant while on the other hand if the pieces were large and few in number the chance of objects in the neighborhood being hit would be slight.

With the size of the fragments known in order to produce a certain effect, it was clearly desirable that the shell should burst into as many pieces of that size as possible and the fragments should be projected as equally as possible in all directions about the center of explosion.

As ordinary shells then made were either spherical or elongated it was almost impossible to tell along which lines the case would break since the interior surface was symmetrical and parallel to the exterior.

To effect the desired object, Colonel Mallet proposed to cast shells with the polyhedral cavity so that there would be certain lines of least resistance along which the shell would be certain to separate.

Prior to the invention of this device the efforts to cause the shell to burst into equal parts had been confined to the shrapnel shell and the segment shell.

In both of these types the walls of the case were thin and enclosed a definite number of pieces of metal which would scatter as the shellburst.

It was a matter of indifference as to how large or how small the pieces of the case became. In the use of this new form of shell for the 6, 12, 24 and 32 pounders the cavities were completely filled with powder.

Musket or rifle powder always gave the best results with the 6 pounder and fine grained cannon powder was suitable for the others.

The Federal artillery paid the Confederate service the compliment of appreciating the improvements in shells and in 1867. General Henry L Abbot of the Corps of Engineers in a report on siege ordnance used during the war stated that there were two improvements in mortar shells introduced by the Confederates which in his judgment should be adopted into the United States service.

He did not state who was responsible for the innovations in the Confederate service but the reference was to the shells perfected by Colonel Mallet and to the providing of certain mortar shells with ears to permit greater ease of handling.

[from The Photographic History of The Civil War Volume 5; page 190]
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top